Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It does add genuinely non-obvious behavior: a quota cost of one per company per 24h, a per-year basis/source flag (consolidated vs standalone, xml/pdf/esef/gpw report), PLN currency, and unit conventions for the ratios (debt ratio as a fraction, margins in %). It stops short of saying what happens when no statements exist or a year is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and the data covered, then packs limits, units, and cost into the same breath with no filler. Nothing repeats the name or title, and every clause (10-year cap, ratio units, quota) carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema covers both inputs, this is close to complete: coverage window, statement types, ratio units, per-year basis/source, currency, and quota cost are all stated. The only gap is return shape/empty-result behavior, which is modest given there is no output schema, though a short note would have closed it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both krs and year are already documented, including the default-to-latest behavior for year. The description adds context about what a returned year contains (basis, source) and the currency of the amounts, but it adds no syntax or validation detail for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (company financial data) and enumerates exactly what it returns: balance sheet, P&L, cash flow, and named ratios, with a 10-year window. It is clear what the tool fetches, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'sprawozdanie' (report), which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for numeric financial statements, and the 10-year limit plus the quota note signal when it is expensive to call. There is no explicit 'use X instead when…' guidance and no stated prerequisites or failure modes, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.